In or out

[Fire and Ice]

perhaps I shall make an effort to demonstrate what I say is factual

Not much chance of that.

I wonder whom you seek to persuade by your made-up allegations.

Come on John... The benefits of EU membership are? We all know that you would want to tell us if you had a clue

 

[Himaginn]

Withdrawal from the European Union
Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."

Article 50
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

This discussion seems, to me, to be made up of two kinds of debater, one who hears some comment down the pub and reiterates it as though it's some kind of mantra, then there are others who see or hear something, think to themselves, "hmm I wonder if that's true or accurate", so they go off to check.

It doesn't matter how many times myths or perceptions (WWT, I'm referring to you as well) are bandied about, it doesn't make it accurate.

Bolo's post makes it totally clear, that it's the "leaving arrangement" that is voted on, not the actually decision or ability to leave.
So obviously an inaccurate assessment of the statement made by some and repeated by others.

Other than that, I think it's pointless us discussing the subject because it's far too complex for this kind of debate, we don't have sufficient research time, access to data or skills, and it's best left to those of greater understanding to make the case for in or out. (Except that there appears to be far more of the Brexit campaign that are willing to reiterate the myths, inaccuracies and untruths.)
In fact, as far as I can see, this discussion simply serves to allow some to propagate the myths and untruths.

 

[Himaginn]

perhaps I shall make an effort to demonstrate what I say is factual

Not much chance of that.

By experience we know that all F&I does is to make even more allegations and prejudicial comments.

 

[Himaginn]

.......... (Except that there appears to be far more of the Brexit campaign that are willing to reiterate the myths, inaccuracies and untruths.)

In hindsight, I'd go further and say because there are so many myths and untruths bandied about by the Brexit campaigners, it dilutes their argument and even undermines it.
If you want to make a real contribution to the campaign, check your facts and dismantle the myths and untruths for the very reason I've just mentioned above.

 

[Deleted member 63160]

This discussion seems, to me, to be made up of two kinds of debater, one who hears some comment down the pub and reiterates it as though it's some kind of mantra, then there are others who see or hear something, think to themselves, "hmm I wonder if that's true or accurate", so they go off to check.

So as usual you are right. Anyone who disagrees is wrong. You are so so clever, they are thick, right wing blah blah. Pretty soon this forum will consist of just you and John D knocking one out for each other with nosey calling you boyo from time to time.

 

[JohnD]

If you can produce some evidence to support claims by the anti-Europeans, for example the idea that the EU is like the Soviet Union, then we can examine the evidence reasonably.

However people who just like to throw in made-up allegations should expect criticism. Do you think that is wrong?

 

[jockscott]

If you can produce some evidence to support claims by the anti-Europeans, for example the idea that the EU is like the Soviet Union, then we can examine the evidence reasonably.

However people who just like to throw in made-up allegations should expect criticism. Do you think that is wrong?

And you choose (yet again) to refuse to answer the question asked by Fire and Ice, re the benefits of staying in the EU. Come on , be a man and answer the bloody question. (he won't)

 

[Himaginn]

If you can produce some evidence to support claims by the anti-Europeans, for example the idea that the EU is like the Soviet Union, then we can examine the evidence reasonably.

However people who just like to throw in made-up allegations should expect criticism. Do you think that is wrong?

And you choose (yet again) to refuse to answer the question asked by Fire and Ice, re the benefits of staying in the EU. Come on , be a man and answer the bloody question. (he won't)

Maybe some people think like me on this subject: a) it's too complex for a simple discussion in this format (and with these protagonists) and b) whatever one says is disputed with very little or tainted evidence by the other side and is usually countered with yet more unsubstantiated allegations.

So what is the point in discussing this subject in this forum?

 

[Shutpa]

Come on , be a man and answer the question. (he won't)

For as long as I can remember, joe-90's MO, when debating any issue, would always resort to using the phrase "....answer the question", followed by "(he won't)".

Is it just coincidence that you use the same tactic or is it just plain plagiarism?

 

[jockscott]

Just plain plagiarism I'm afraid.

 

[jockscott]

If you can produce some evidence to support claims by the anti-Europeans, for example the idea that the EU is like the Soviet Union, then we can examine the evidence reasonably.

However people who just like to throw in made-up allegations should expect criticism. Do you think that is wrong?

And you choose (yet again) to refuse to answer the question asked by Fire and Ice, re the benefits of staying in the EU. Come on , be a man and answer the bloody question. (he won't)

Maybe some people think like me on this subject: a) it's too complex for a simple discussion in this format (and with these protagonists) and b) whatever one says is disputed with very little or tainted evidence by the other side and is usually countered with yet more unsubstantiated allegations.

So what is the point in discussing this subject in this forum?

But John D must have some sort of view, otherwise he can't take the stance he has . Fire and Ice has rightly asked him to explain the benefits (as he sees them) to continued EU membership. I'll agree it's a complex issue, but in all fairness if John D has a view on this he'd answer the question, instead of side stepping the issue (every time it's brought up) Here's an (as yet) unsubstantiated allegation for you,, John D is unprepared to answer the question.

 

[JohnD]

Do you find it surprising that Fire writes posts which are untrue?

Answer the question (he won't).

 

[PBC_1966]

Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." {.....}

Bolo's post makes it totally clear, that it's the "leaving arrangement" that is voted on, not the actually decision or ability to leave.

As it stands at the moment. That doesn't mean that EU bureaucrats have not given consideration to having the rules changed and some of them are not pushing for such changes.

Consider how often the EU throws around phrases like "ever closer union" and "irrevocable union." Does the latter, in particular, sound like an idea of the EU always being a "club" from which any member is free to resign at any time?

But even as it stands at present, what about that "leaving arrangement" which would be voted on should the U.K. decide to pull out? As far as British law is concerned, parliament is sovereign (with possible, if unlikely, royal perogative to override any such parliamentary decision). If the government passed a statute saying that the U.K. is out of the EU as of whatever date unconditionally and without reference to any EU negotiation procedures, and that the U.K. is not paying one penny more into the EU, that's it as far as the U.K. is concerned.

 

[jockscott]

Consider how often the EU throws around phrases like "ever closer union" and "irrevocable union." Does the latter, in particular, sound like an idea of the EU always being a "club" from which any member is free to resign at any time?

Sounds more like one of these religious sects, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, from which members who leave are ostracised, ignored and possibly threatened.

PS for John D,, re-your last reply on this forum,,, Neatly side stepped yet again.. Are you a man or a mouse? Come on answer the chap.

 

[Himaginn]

Withdrawal from the European Union is a right of European Union (EU) member states under the Treaty on European Union (Article 50): "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements." {.....}

Bolo's post makes it totally clear, that it's the "leaving arrangement" that is voted on, not the actually decision or ability to leave.

As it stands at the moment. That doesn't mean that EU bureaucrats have not given consideration to having the rules changed and some of them are not pushing for such changes.

It also doesn't mean that the EU Bureaucrats have not given consideration to having rules changed and some of them are pushing for such change. Perhaps they'll make it easier.

Consider how often the EU throws around phrases like "ever closer union" and "irrevocable union." Does the latter, in particular, sound like an idea of the EU always being a "club" from which any member is free to resign at any time?

But even as it stands at present, what about that "leaving arrangement" which would be voted on should the U.K. decide to pull out? As far as British law is concerned, parliament is sovereign (with possible, if unlikely, royal perogative to override any such parliamentary decision). If the government passed a statute saying that the U.K. is out of the EU as of whatever date unconditionally and without reference to any EU negotiation procedures, and that the U.K. is not paying one penny more into the EU, that's it as far as the U.K. is concerned.

UK read and understood the "contract" when they signed......and the several re-negotiations of that contract. Do you think it's reasonable to ignore the "get-out" clauses in contracts, when you want to get-out.